Featured, Jack Heckathorne - Posted by Sysop on Saturday, September 5, 2009 13:22 - 3 Comments 9,271 views
The Great Hoax of Evolution
By: Jack Heckathorne
Author of the book “Separation of Church and God, The Final Judgment”
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
[George Wald, Evolutionist and former professor of biology at
“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)
If you believe in your mind that there is no God, there is no right and wrong, there is no creator, no absolute truth, no moral authority in this universe, then you must believe that “nothing” turns into chemicals, and chemicals turn into plants, animals and people, with no power, intelligence, purpose or design, leaving no evidence, and all it takes is time.
You must believe that there was no guiding intelligence which wrote the DNA code or assembled these chemicals, and that a single cell, with its trillion parts arranged in a precise order, and its ability to reproduce itself, just happened one day, and that life created its own self. You must believe that you, your children, your pets, the food you eat, and everything that you can see and comprehend, are the result of trillions upon trillions of random accidents, over billion upon billion of years. You must believe that blind random chance, given enough time, created a perfectly ordered universe. You must believe that everything was either created from nothing by a supreme intelligence, or that everything arose by nothing and from nothing, and that life is nothing but a combination of chemicals and there is no such thing as morality, a human soul or conscience and that mankind is just another animal. And you must believe this in spite of the fact that there is not one iota of real scientific proof to support your belief. There is simply no other choice. The Bible declares, however, that all life was created by God in “kinds.”
Creation in Kinds
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:1, 2)
“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
“And the Earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)
“And God created great whales, after their kind, and every living creature that moveth after his kind, which the waters brought fourth abundantly after their kind: and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:15)
Evolutionists claim that animals, plants and humans evolved gradually over millions of years and that certain features, such as the eye, evolved as time went along. Is this real science or an imaginary story? First of all, science has never proven, scientifically, that humans, or anything else, evolve from one kind of organism to another kind. One of the best examples of evolution in the school text books, is the fact that insects become resistant to pesticides. They tell students that this is how we can see evolution happening today. This isn’t evolution at all. The fact that they throw in the word “evolve” means nothing. It only amounts to resistance, not the changing of one animal into another, higher form. If an insect could become resistant to every pesticide in existence, it would still be the same insect. A bug starts out as a bug, and ends up as the same bug, no matter what you squirt on him.
The same thing is true of the AIDS virus. Evolutionists say that it “evolves” to form another resistant virus, which is impervious to the AIDS medication. It does not evolve, it becomes resistant. It is still a virus. It does not become a higher being; it simply puts up a new defense. All life forms change from generation to generation, and so does a virus. There is a limit to the amount of change. The virus is just smarter than the people who make the vaccine. It will never become a duck or a buffalo. Ultimately, evolution is the changing of one animal into another higher animal, and this has never been observed in nature.
Nor has anyone proven that life came from non living matter, i.e. spontaneous generation. Claiming that it happened and proving that it happened are two totally different things. If it is a fact, as some claim, then they should have the step by step proof to demonstrate how a rock became a living organism. Step by step speculation is not proof, nor is it science, so until evolution overcomes this huge obstacle its supporters cannot declare it to be a fact. Because it is not provable, evolution stops before it starts.
Evolutionists start out with a belief that things evolve, based on no evidence, and then try desperately to find something in nature to prove their point. In other words, their thinking is “there just can’t be a God-so we must have evolved-so let’s figure out how things evolve.” They can’t find any real evidence in nature to support their idea, so oftentimes they intentionally misinterpret their evidence to make their ideas seem more tenable, but usually end up scratching their head, and making weird statements. Read the first paragraph in this chapter again, and realize that this came from a very intelligent and honest man who was the leading evolutionist of his time, but just could not believe in an intelligent creator. What else could he say? This type of mentality stems from spiritual blindness.
The idea that life evolves from non-life has been around for a long time.
In the 1600’s “science” believed that maggots and flies were generated from rotting meat and garbage. Redi performed a simple scientific experiment in 1668 which proved beyond any doubt that flies breed in garbage, but do not arise from it. The idea of maggots from meat was dismissed, but the hope of spontaneous generation lived on. Later tests were conducted by John Needham in 1745, in an attempt to prove spontaneous generation. His chicken broth experiment seemed to be successful, and he claimed victory. People started developing the belief that there was no God. It wasn’t until a brilliant young chemist came along, and performed an experiment, which disproved
Pasture believed that life only comes from life. The topic of spontaneous generation was so widespread and debated by this time, that in 1859 the
First, science thought that life came from garbage, and then they thought that it came from chicken broth, and finally today, in this modern age of intelligence, scientists declare (with a straight face) that intelligent life came from rocks. Please understand that they have to believe this for two reasons. For one thing, there is nothing else left from which life could have been spontaneously generated. Either life came from something living, or it came from lifeless chemicals. Secondly, without spontaneous generation, evolution has no starting point, and so this infers that the creation of life must have originated from a supernatural means i.e. a living God. Evolutionists cannot accept this because they are committed to materialism and in addition, are unable to understand the spiritual things of God, as we will see shortly.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (food) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:27-31)
So, nowadays we are an enlightened people, no longer believing that life spontaneously comes from rotting meat or moldy chicken broth right? Wrong! As I said previously, evolutionists have now declared that life came from a rock, which became a soup, and the soup was struck by lightning, or something, and caused molecules to conveniently get together and create a life forms of a trillion parts, called cells, instantly complete with DNA and the ability to reproduce themselves. Then, they tell us, that these cells formed fungus, bacteria and fish. Then after millions of years fish grew feet, for some reason, and climbed out of the water and became animals. Then the animals decided to lose their tail, stand up and become man. Now, many believe, that man is evolving into gods.
Everything is physical to the evolutionists because of his inability to understand spiritual things of God. All unbelievers have a dead human spirit which perceives spiritual things. He rules out a creator from the beginning because he considers it foolishness, but often ends up looking foolish himself because, without God, impossible things, such as spontaneous generation, cannot happen or be explained. The Bible teaches that biological life did, in fact, come from non-life. Man was fashioned by God from the dust of the ground. “God breathed” the soul and spirit into the dust, and it animated man. However,
this is not spontaneous generation. It would be best described as divine generation or simply, creation. Life came from the living God, not random chemicals. Human, animal and plant life came from God who is the source of life. Pasture was right-life only comes from life. Man is much more than a combination of chemicals.
God rested his creative acts on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2) and this is why we cannot see anything new coming into existence today.
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested (stopped) on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” (Genesis 2:1-3)
Whatever we believe, it must be by faith. We cannot see God via any scientific means nor can we know of our own beginnings through science. The beginning cannot be observed or tested therefore; it is outside the realm of science. To make things even worse for evolutionists and atheists they cannot understand anything about God with their own intellect. For one thing, they aren’t looking for it and another thing is, like all unbelievers, they are spiritually dead.
“But the natural man (the unbeliever) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: (the Holy Spirit) for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they
are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Even when we (believers) were (spiritually) dead in sins, hath (God) quickened (made alive) us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Eph. 2:5)
God did not just create one cell, he created all of the cells at once to work together and form complete living organisms, and he put them in kinds so that they could reproduce and give us the varieties of plants, animals and people that we find all around us today. Life would be quite monotonous if we all looked the same, if all food were the same, and all plants looked alike? The millions of life forms that we see around us are so common
that we often take them for granted. Because of advancements in science, we now know that all life forms come from information contained in DNA, which is a set of instructions on how to build a living organism to put it simply.
Think of DNA as a computer software program and the body as the computer hardware. Once the program is put into the computer it will do whatever it was designed to do, and nothing else. The soul and spirit of man are the thinking apparatus for the body. The soul comprehends physical things and the spirit comprehends spiritual things of God.
However, a computer needs more than hardware and software. It must have had a creator and must have an operator, just as a person must have a creator (God) and operator (the soul and spirit). The soul contains our free will and the spirit is our connection with God and this makes us complete so that we can understand physical things of the world and the spiritual things of God.
The reason that plants, sea creatures and land animals still exist in “kinds” is because they contain DNA which will only allow them to reproduce within their family or kind. In addition, animals have a built in instinct to only reproduce with their own kind. Any cowboy can tell you that if you put a male and female horse in a pen with fifty cows, the male horse will find the female horse every time. Horses aren’t stupid. If you are a man, suppose you were in a zoo with all the different animals and a tall, gorgeous, long legged brunette gal walked by and winked at you. Which would capture your attention, her or the monkeys?
If you tried to artificially cross a horse and a cow the offspring, if it even lived, would always be sterile. A horse and a donkey are closely related, and when mated produce a mule. Mules are always sterile, and would not survive as a separate animal.
Man has to intervene to produce a mule. So, in the wild a mule or any other kind of manipulated breeding could not reproduce and eventually turn into another kind of animal, as evolution requires. They would simply die and produce no off spring, and the kind would be preserved. DNA will build whatever organism it was designed to build.
Dogs are always dogs, roses are roses, and people are people. There are different types of each of course, and they can breed within the kind. For example, you can breed a greyhound and a collie, and get a dog with features of both. If you breed a long haired dog and a short haired dog you will get a dog with medium length hair. This is a loss of information because the offspring here has lost the ability to have long hair. You have to have more information to get a higher animal. What you will never get is a cat or a horse. Why? Because the dog’s DNA has no instructions on building a horse or a cat.
Any breeding will result in a loss of information from the original animal even though you may get the desired animal. Horses are often bred to be lighter for racing. They may be faster because of their smaller size, but they lost the ability to work and can no longer pull the plow or wagon as easily as a larger stronger horse.
In the case of mutations, the same is true. A mutation might cause a turtle to have an extra head, but it will never cause a turtle to have feathers. Mutations can only produce a mixed up version of the information which already exists. Mutations can not add anything new to DNA because the information is not available to start with.
Evolution theory claims that eventually you will get another kind of animal because of mutations and natural selection. The fact that all living things only exist in kinds today, proves that evolution doesn’t happen. Even extinct animals, such as dinosaurs, existed in kinds. If evolution did happen then all living things would be a mixture of different animals, and there would be no “kinds.”
To top it all off we are told that all animals, and all other life forms, came from a type of rock, which doesn’t exist, in an ammonia atmosphere that never existed. This is the absurdity of evolution, and it is being taught to our school kids as a fact, for the sole purpose of proving that there is no Creator God, and thus no Jesus Christ. Evolution serves no other purpose.
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
[G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.]
People who have this attitude toward Jesus would be well advised to invest in a good pair of asbestos underwear, because Jesus Christ will be the judge on judgment day.
Science means “knowledge.” Notice how the writer, matter of factly, calls evolution “science.” Evolution is not science because, unlike true scientific facts, such as gravity, we cannot see it in a lab, observe it happening or prove it to be false or true. I could claim that I was abducted by space aliens and taken to the planet Zoron, nine hundred million light years from earth, and found out that it is made of green cheese. How would anyone be able to prove me wrong? I could make up all sorts of rationalizations of how I got there, but I couldn’t prove scientifically that my story was true, and no one could prove it to be false. If my story was pounded into your head from childhood, all the way through school, and for the rest of your life, by school teachers and people with Ph.D.’s rationalizing it, you would eventually think that there was something to it, even if you had no facts to prove it. My story may be ridiculous, but the story that a man came from a rock with no intelligence involved, is even more ridiculous.
If you hear a lie enough times from people, who you believe are knowledgeable, you will eventually accept it as truth especially if you never hear an opposing view. This is the agenda of evolution. Liars always mix truth with their lies to make their story more believable.
They want you to think that if you don’t believe in evolution that you are not an open-minded, intelligent person. The communists use a technique called indoctrination. They will only allow one side of a story to be told, so that you will have nothing to compare their story with. By the way, communist countries always ban Christianity, and indoctrinate with evolution. Creation scientists, many of whom are former evolutionists, have demonstrated scientifically, that most of things evolutionists rely on as evidence is not accurate and better explained in a creation context. This is why evolutionists fight so hard to keep the teaching of creation out of any public forum and why they mix their philosophy with true science. They furiously fight to keep anything that Christianity teaches out of the public eye. The battle is over undecided people.
“Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." [Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990]
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:22)
Evolutionists claim that the earth is four and one half billion years old and the universe is some twenty billion years old. One scientist said that he knew what happened in the first one billionth of a second after the big bang explosion. Boy howdy, he must really be a smart guy. Where does he get his information? It’s not information. Unless he was out there in space with a really fast stop watch when it happened, it was not observed and is not science at all, but rather dogmatic speculation. Now they are spending a fortune to to try and find out what happened in the first one trillionth of a second thirteen billion years ago! They would save a lot of money if they would just ask me. I would tell them “not much.” All they are trying to do is get some useless data so they can interpret it to support the big bang theory which, by the way, has lost nearly all of it’s credibility in recent years among many scientists because of so much contradictory evidence. It amounts to assumptions on top of assumptions and is subject only to their interpretation in yet another veiled and futile effort to “prove” the non-existence of a creator God.
Of course, evolutionists use a lot of big meaningless words, so as to make people think they know what they are talking about. They don’t “know” anymore about evolution than you do, because there is no scientific evidence for it, much less proof. What they do know is their own very complicated ideas, and then they try to work their ideas into true science to make evolution seem scientifically credible. Even what they claim to know about the Bible is atrocious. They freely mix fact and fiction to the point that, I don’t believe even they know which is which. Evolution will never be clear in your mind because it is impossible, illogical, non observable, self contradictory, and goes against true science, but why do so many elitists try to find proof of it?
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso- stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
[Richard Lewontin ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.]
Lewontin says here that materialism is an absolute, but another evolutionist says:
“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.
[Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human 1930]
I wonder if these guys are absolutely sure about their position. The fact that he says there are no absolutes is an absolute statement itself. If there are no absolute truths then that would be an absolute truth! Ok, now we are getting somewhere!
In plain language they, the superior minds, have to dream up something without God, and totally natural, i.e. evolution, and present it as a fact to explain to us uneducated morons why there is no God, regardless of fact that they may not believe it themselves. The only thing that I cannot quite figure out about this quote is, who it is that forces them to have an “adherence to material causes” and why they “cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”
Is this just their way of making people not believe in God even though you must believe in the impossible, i.e. spontaneous generation, in order to achieve unbelief? They have actually admitted that creation is true but won’t accept God. If they are not compelled by science to accept a material explanation then who are they forced by? Perhaps by their god who is prodding them with a pitchfork.
“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent… Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men…But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.” (1 Corinthians 1:19, 25, 27)
Micro, Macro Evolution
Evolutionists call breeding within the kind “micro evolution” which is possible of course, and claim that micro evolution somehow causes “macro evolution” which is the changing of one animal into another animal, either by gradual steps or all at once, depending on who you talk to. This goes against all scientific knowledge, and we certainly do not see it happening today, nor can we see it in the fossil record. Mutations and natural selection is the basis for the idea that features on an organism develop over time. This is flawed thinking to say the least. For instance, how could any organism reproduce and evolve over thousands of generations, before the organs to reproduce evolved?
The ability to reproduce had to be present at the very beginning. This means that the heart, stomach, lungs, nervous system, brain etc. had to exist at the beginning as well in order to support the reproductive system no matter how primitive the organism was or how small its size. Remember, that even the simplest cell that we know about has some trillion parts, which must be arranged in a precise order for it to work. Life is made up of these cells, and they form every part, of every complex system, of every living thing, from information contained within them. It takes a lot more faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than to believe that a great intelligence brought this into existence for a reason. Evolutionists talk about simple cells. None have ever been observed, but ok, for the sake of argument, how about half that; five hundred billion parts? As you can see, life has never been simple. If ten thousand of the worlds greatest scientists got together and formed an organization, and had unlimited funding, they wouldn’t have a clue as how to build a single cell. But yet, they believe evolution, which is not an entity, nor intelligence, nor a process and has no substance, or power, did. Evolution is an ambiguous philosophy, not science.
How could an animal with a partial brain or stomach exist? Try to imagine how the eye gradually evolved from a light sensitive patch, and how a partially developed brain, stomach, nervous system etc. could keep an animal alive over millions of years while these things were gradually evolving. No organism can survive without its many vital organs and systems fully developed. That is why they are called “vital” because an organism cannot survive without them fully functioning. In addition, the vital organs cannot exist without the non vital organs. Eyesight is non vital but how could cats, for example, live for millions of years not being able to see his prey?
No part of an airplane will fly on its own. A wheel won’t fly, a propeller won’t fly, a wing won’t fly, and fuel won’t fly. To say that organs evolved as time went along is to say that a plane built itself, while it was flying in the air. It has been said that an airplane is made up of non flying parts. Nothing works unless it all works. The plane won’t fly unless it is completely assembled and everything is working from the beginning. No life form will work unless it is completely assembled and everything is working from the beginning. Creation makes sense, evolution does not. Anyone knows that every airplane was designed and built complete by intelligence, and so why would biological life be any different? You may be thinking, “Well now, I know that people can live without a number of limbs and organs, even with no arms and legs.” You would be correct, but how long would we be around if no one had any arms or legs? The plane can fly without the wheels too, but how would it take off and what happens when it runs out of fuel?
The Cosmic Egg
When you buy into evolution from the standpoint of life, you must buy into the idea that the entire universe evolved since you believe that there is no creator God. Evolution teaches that the entire universe came from an explosion of a so called ‘cosmic egg’. This begs the question “where did the cosmic egg come from?” Of course, evolutionists have postulated several vague ideas, but someone has suggested the perhaps the “cosmic chicken” laid the cosmic egg. You never know, there may be a KFCC restaurant somewhere out there in space.
There is one thing that we know for sure and that is, there was a beginning. This means that there was a time before the beginning when physical matter and energy did not exist. There is no way that anything can evolve when there is no matter, no energy, no anything. The problem with cosmologists is that they do not know the definition of the word “nothing.”
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing. Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats… You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”
[David Darling, New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996). p. 49]
For those of you who may not know, quantum mechanics is the study of matter and energy at the atomic level.
The following words were written long before the concept of evolution or the cosmic egg was dreamed up by man’s imagination.
“For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is (existed) before all things, and by him all things consist.(Colossians 1:16-17)
We often hear the phrase “evolutionary process” on television programs, or see it in books. However, it is an oxymoron. The term is used for effect only and it is not a real process. “Evolution” implies random chance events with no guiding force, power or intelligence behind it. “Process” implies a well thought out system in which every phase of it works to achieve a predetermined goal. You can’t get a can of beans without intelligence, and we were designed and built in the beginning by an intelligence far greater than our own.
Bible Thumping Monkey Thumpers
Today many churches are accepting and even teaching evolution. They do this partially out of ignorance, but primarily to draw in evolutionary minded people to the church. It is commonly called the numbers game. They recognize that evolution cannot explain the origin of all things, but are not willing to give up on evolution itself. They then have to come up with more barnyard theories about how God made evolution happen – bla, bla, bla – and thereby twisting or ignoring the Bible as all religions do. This is pseudo-science, and amounts to nothing more than someone’s wild guess. These guys believe the Bible is true, but not literal. The Bible however, tells us that the first man (Adam) was alone on the earth, and that God created a woman (Eve) for him, from his rib.
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him… And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:18, 21, 22)
If the man was alone, and the first woman did not exist, but came along later, as the Bible teaches, how could people be a result of evolution? Things get even more impossible when they try to stretch the days of creation out into long ages, rather than twenty four hour solar days. Did one man evolve all alone for millions of years before the woman evolved? So, why isn’t the man millions of years more evolved than the woman?
Some of these types of churches say that science and the Bible do not disagree. This is true if we are talking about true, testable, observable science, but they are lumping true science and evolution together, as if they were the same thing. We are being hoodwinked. There is only one truth in this world, and the rest of the world is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the things of God.
Since evolution cannot be tested or observed, it is not true science. True science can only determine facts. It can never interpret facts, or tell us what the facts mean. Science can tell us the fact that life comes from other life, but it cannot tell us where life came from originally, or what the purpose of life is. Science has limits. Origins, and our purpose, must be reveled to us.
Who could reveal these things other than a creator? Either man’s preconceived notions about himself will account for the meaning of all things, or God has revealed the meaning to us in the Bible. We must believe one or the other since there is no third option. So, we can conclude that the book of Genesis was written to be taken literally, and trying to mix God and evolutionary thought is pointless and misleading.
Can Atheists Be Good Without God?
“There is a new atheist’s ad out with a picture of Santa Claus and the words: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” This is clever, but is it possible? Let’s analyze it more carefully.
First, if there is no Moral Law Giver (God), then how can there be a moral law that prescribes: “Be good.” Every prescription has a prescriber, and this is a moral prescription.
Second, what does “good” mean? How is good to be defined.? If it can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for anyone. It is total relativism. Being “good” for some (like Nazis) can mean killing Jews. But for Jews it is evil. Hence, on this view there is no objective difference between good and evil.
Third, what does “goodness” itself mean in the atheist slogan? Being good “for goodness sake” implies that something is just plain good in itself. That is, it is an ultimate goodness. But this by definition is what Christians mean by God. Everything else has goodness, but only God (the Ultimate) is goodness. In this case, the atheist is using “goodness” as a surrogate or substitute for God.
This maneuver is not uncommon for atheists. Before the Big Bang evidence, (that the universe has a beginning) atheists were fond of doing this with the word “universe.” It was supposed to be eternal and, hence, needed no Cause since only what begins needs a Beginner. Carl Sagan employed the term “Cosmos” as a God-substitute. He said, “The COSMOS is everything that ever was, is, or will be.” It sounds a little like what Psalm 90 declares: “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Bertrand Russell attempted the same tactic in his famous BBC debate with Father Copleston. When asked what caused the universe, he replied that nothing did. It was just “there.” But how does an eternal, uncaused universe from which everything else came to be differ from an Uncaused Cause (God)?
However, in the light of the Big Bang evidence that the universe had a beginning, these answers lack scientific support. As agnostic Jastrow put it, "The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation." And”This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’" (God and the Astronomers, 115)
Fourth, Dembski and Wells give another objection in recent book (How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or not), 115): “Atheism is a belief with scientific pretensions but no scientific backing.” It has no scientific backing for believing in an eternal universe, The Second Law of Thermodynamics still holds. The universe is running out of useable energy and, therefore, cannot be eternal. And it has no scientific backing for the spontaneous origin of first life. Again, as Dembski notes, “Until science can show that physical process operating under realistic prebiotic conditions can bring about full-fledged cells from nonliving material, intellectual fulfillment remains an atheistic pipedream.”
Fifth, the truth is that many of the great atheists themselves understood well that without God there is no basis for being good for goodness sake. The famous French atheist, Jean Paul Sartre said, without God, “I was like a man who’s lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, not right or wrong, nor anyone to give me orders” (The Flies, Act III). Nietzsche said that when God died (see the “Madman” in Gay Science), then all objective values died with Him. And a subjective understanding of goodness to which everyone can assign their own relative meaning, is not goodness at all–let alone being goodness for goodness sake.
Sixth, atheists fail to make an important distinction. One can be good (as many atheists are) without believing in God. But one cannot be good without there being a God. That is, they can believe in a moral law (and live accordingly) without believing in God. But they cannot justify this belief without reference to a Moral Law Giver (God). This leads to one last observation.
Seventh, the fact is, that you cannot have an objective moral law without a Moral Law Giver. But atheists are the first to insist there must be a moral law–otherwise, how can they mount their argument against God from the injustices in this world. C. S. Lewis said this clearly when he wrote, “[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line” (Mere Christianity, 15). Thus, he reasoned from this objective moral law to a Moral Law Giver (God). The atheist must make his painful choice: Either he loses the basis for his argument against God from evil, or he must admit there is an objective moral law which leads to a Moral Law Giver. One thing is certain: without God, the atheist cannot have objective goodness for goodness sake. Indeed, since “for goodness sake” is a euphemistic phrase meaning “For God’s sake,” then the atheist ad, both literarily and logically, should be rendered, “Why believe in God? Just be good for God’s sake.” In other words, it is precisely because there is a God that we can really be good. Without an absolutely good God, there is no real objective basis for being good. [Dr. Norman Geisler has a BA, MA, ThM, and PhD (in philosophy].
People tend to believe in evolution because they think dinosaurs “prove” it. Dinosaurs are extinct animals and the same questionable dating methods are used on their fossil remains as any other animal. There is evidence that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. The first dinosaur bones were dug up in 1809 so that should be the first time that man ever knew what they looked like if indeed they became extinct sixty five million years ago as evolutionists claim. Yet we find accurate drawings of dinosaurs in caves, drawn by Indians, in the fifteenth century. The word “dinosaur” was made up in 1841 so naturally you don’t find the word in ancient writings. The word dragon is found in quite a number of old writings. Marco Polo, upon returning home from a trip to
“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee (man); he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar (very large tail): the sinews (muscles) of his stones are wrapped together His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief (largest most powerful) of the ways of God (God’s creation) he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens (swamp). The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth (believes) that he can draw up
Creationist John Whitmore has this to say regarding the relatively recent demise of the dinosaurs.
“In the early 1900’s on the Doheny expedition into the
[John Whitmore from the article “What happened to the Dinosaurs” from Kent Hovinds website www.drdino.com]
Fossils are formed when a plant or animal is covered over with sediments settling out from running water or mud flows. Then when it dries out, it leaves an imprint in the resulting sedimentary rock. The plant or animal usually decays, and the sediments turn to stone, leaving an impression. Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock which was laid down by water and never in rock, such as granite. Evolutionists would have us believe that the fossils are millions of years old, and formed very slowly. They date fossils by the strata (layers in the earth) in which they are found. If a certain animal is found in a particular layer it is deemed to be the same age as the layer. Then they date the layers by the fossils which are found in them. This is circular reasoning, and the dates are only
Dating methods such as uranium thorium lead; rubidium strontium and radiocarbon yield such wildly different results, and are so full of assumptions and politics that they are basically useless in their accuracy. Carbon dating can only date the remains of something that was once alive. Since fossils are stone, it is useless for this purpose. When someone takes a fossil into lab for dating they have to tell the lab how old they “think” it is. Then the lab throws it in the tank, pulls the choke, grinds the starter, pushes buttons and twists knobs until they get the dates they want. Assumptions on top of assumptions are made in such tests, and when the results are in the evolutionist, who must believe in very old dates, simply discards the dates he doesn’t want. Then the public is then told that this fossil is 5.5 million years old, and this is considered proof. This is self serving evidence, and what does it prove, and how can anyone prove it is not true?
They assume that great ages are required to form the earth’s strata so the fossils must be very old as well. However, things other than plants and animals are also fossilized. Raindrops, a mans hat, a mans leg inside a pair of cowboy boots, a set of car keys, human footprints, and a hand axe are a few examples of things that have been found inside sedimentary rock or coal, and could not have been fossilized over eons of time. In addition, jellyfish are commonly found fossilized. A jellyfish will melt away in just a few days time after it dies. A fish has been found fossilized in the process of eating a smaller fish. An extinct marine reptile, called an ichthyosaur, was fossilized while of giving birth. Such examples prove a rapid burial. Such as would occur in a large flood.
Here is a subject that no evolutionist wants to talk about. Today there are many recently discovered animals, plants and fish living, which evolutionists have been telling us for decades became extinct millions of years ago. Some of these, they have told us, far predate the dinosaurs. These animals and plants have shown no evolutionary change whatsoever when compared with their supposedly very old “dated” fossils. If these living things did exist so long ago, and are now living, why in the world didn’t they evolve? Although many examples exist, I will list but a few:
Fish-The Coelacanth; Fossils were claimed to be four hundred million years old. These fish were discovered living in 1938. Since then, a whole population has been discovered living off of the coast of
Trees-The Wollemi Pine; Said to have existed with the dinosaurs 150 million years ago. Discovered living in
Neopilina mollusks; Fossils claimed to be 400-500 million years old. Discovered living in the early 1950’s. No evolutionary change.
Salamanders: Recently discovered fossils were dated at 150 million years old in
One of two things are true here; either something is haywire in their dating system, and the fossils are not nearly as old as thought, or things simply don’t evolve, or both.
“If a living thing survives in a flawless form down to the present day with all the features it displayed millions of years ago and having undergone no change whatsoever, then this evidence is powerful enough to entirely dismiss the gradual evolution model anticipated by Darwin. Moreover, far from there being just one example to demonstrate this, there are in fact millions. Countless organisms exhibit no differences from their original states, which first appeared millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. As openly stated by
Every other extinct animal that has been found living shows no evolutionary change whatsoever. In fact, no fossils do.
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?’
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould] and the
“The liberal media frequently attract attention with such headlines as "20-Milion-Year-Old Spider Fossil Discovered" or "35-Million-Year-Old Lizard Fossil Unearthed." Each of these reports is actually further proof that nothing like the evolutionary process ever happened. There are many examples of living fossils and in addition, these examples go back hundreds of millions of years according to the evolutionists.
The crocodile is a reptile that was living 200 (supposed) million years ago, as is confirmed by the fossil record. Yet it is of course alive today. Ginkgo trees were living 125 million years ago, but living specimens were found in
The Australian and African lungfish is another example of a living fossil that was alive 400 million years ago and still thrives in the present. Charles Darwin was astonished by the survival of these fish down to the present day, and in his Origin of Species, he therefore referred to them as "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."
This is by no means the end of the list of creatures that still survive today unchanged, in exactly the same form as they displayed millions of years ago. The sturgeon, mackerel, freshwater bass, herring, needlefish, lobster, crawfish and the Devonian-period shark are all examples of living fossils. Other examples include the jellyfish, sponges, frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites. The 230-million-year-old dragonfly, soldier ants dating back 100 million years, and the 150-million-year-old salamander are all still living today in a nearby pond where the fossils were discovered. The same applies to arachnids such as the spider and myriapods such as the millipede.
Finally, a spider fossilized in amber, and estimated as being 20 million years old, was one of the most important discoveries of the 2000s. A statement from
The Earth contains countless other fossil specimens from millions of years ago of organisms still living today, such as this spider, and of other creatures now extinct. These are just a few of the millions of specimens kept in various museums.” 3
My question is, what in the world does evolve, why do they stop evolving or why would some animals evolve and some not? Are we to believe that “none” of these millions of living fossils needed to evolve for the past multi-millions of years but yet they evolved to complete creatures in the multi-millions of years prior to that then suddenly stopped? The very fact that all of the fossils have been living all of this time and evolutionists said they were extinct millions of years ago demonstrates that they don’t even know what is extinct and what isn’t, so how can they be trusted when they say “natural selection-mutations” causes animals to turn into a different animals?
Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest
Why would an evolutionist say these animals went extinct because they couldn’t survive before they were found living and then say, once they were found living, that they were a product of the “survival of the fittest?”
How does “survival” turn one animal into another? It doesn’t, natural selection simply keeps the animal population healthy by eliminating the weaker or sick ones. At least in theory it does, however, we have to depend on the Lion for example, to sift through a herd of deer to pick out the most unfit one. Or a whale to examine all of the hundreds of fish he swallows to determine which is not fit to live. I think it is more like the survival of the luckiest. Where did all information to produce life originate? Evolutionist’s sort of skip over this tidbit by saying that all information, all life, consciousness, thought etc. etc. originally came from a rock in an ammonia atmosphere! There was never an ammonia atmosphere because all rocks, including the oldest basement rocks, are all oxidized indicating that there has always been an oxygen atmosphere.
They say this because cells cannot evolve or survive in an oxygen atmosphere and in addition there is nothing else from which life could have evolved other than dirt and rocks, water and lightning and there is no information for life in any of those.
If you think cells can survive on their own, put a banana on the counter and see how long it will live. For that matter, put it in an ammonia atmosphere and see how long it lives. It will die and there is no stopping it once it is remove from the source of life. Everything is this way in nature. In order to live, cells must be within a fully formed life source which nourishes it. So, for this reason and many others we can see that life could only have been created fully formed and functional by a creator.
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.‘ [Steven J.Gould, Evolutionist Harvard Uni.]
Fossil Trees and a big flood
Common sense dictates that neither animals, plants nor humans would die and lay on the ground for millions of years while they were being fossilized. Dead things decay very rapidly. Some fossils are found in coal seams which evolutionists claim took millions of years to form. Trees are commonly found around the world running vertically through what they claim are millions of years of strata. How could a tree stand in one place for millions of years without rotting away, while the strata were forming? In addition, some of these trees are found upside down. It is evident that the fossils are not as old as some would have us believe. It follows then that neither are the animals that have been fossilized. Some evolutionist came up with the idea that these trees were growing, and were just covered over by a mud flow by some local flood. If this is the case then how did the millions of years of strata form around them? How about the upside down ones?
Many of these fossilized trees are located in strata which run for many miles, and are found in high elevations. So, a small local flood could not have buried these trees high up in the mountains. Creationists believe that there was a world wide flood at some time in the past, and that the stratum was laid down by running water. The animals, plants etc. which were fossilized were trapped by sediments or mud flows. This would explain why there are literally billions of fossils, and why they are found in all parts of the world at different depths in the earth. It would also explain why there is sedimentary rock
and marine fossils in high elevations, and on mountain tops. Sharks and whales have been discovered buried in elevated desert areas. We know that strata can form very rapidly from mud flows. A miniature grand canyon was formed by mud flows in just a few days complete with thousands of layers of strata, and a small river running down through the middle of it as a result of just one medium size volcanic eruption. This happened before our eyes in a few hours at
We might even find people who lived and died there.
The textbook strata drawings which you find in school textbooks do not exist in the real world. There are not six or eight nice neat layers, each representing a time period. In some places there are no layers at all and, in other places there are many thousands of layers. Some layers are thick, and some are micro fine. Furthermore, any given fossil is not always found in the same layer. In other words, some animal might be found three feet deep in one area, and fifty or a hundred feet deep in another location.
These are called misplaced fossils, and are not at all uncommon. From an evolutionary standpoint one would think that the specimen nearest the surface would be millions of years more evolved than the other, but they are always virtually identical. Evolutionists claim that all species of animals change gradually over millions of years. They also boldly claim, and necessarily so, that there are numerous transitional links which have been found in the fossil record. When creationists have ask for proof of these claims they are either ignored or shown drawings and skulls made from plaster, or perhaps a tiny fragment of bone. Sometimes evolutionists will line up several fossils of the same animal from the smallest size to the largest size to give you the impression that one evolved from the other. In reality such specimens are merely different ages or a different breed of the same animal. You could line up different size people today from three feet to seven feet tall. So what has been proven? Nothing-it is all deceit. The fact is that the real fossils which have been found, are fully formed and functional. We never find a half bird, half reptile fossil for example.
There was one claimed to have been found in
“The fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ‘archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a
different dinosaur.” He added that a fossil in a private collection in
Piltdown Man -Fake
He was supposedly half man, half ape and he deceived many of the world’s greatest evolutionists, and scientists from 1912 until 1953. It was discovered that it was made up of a six hundred and twenty year old human skull, and a five hundred year old orangutans jaw. Obviously, the dating methods were off a bit. The apes’ teeth were filed down to make it appear human. It was stained to make it look old, and artificially “fossilized,” then buried in a gravel pit. Then it was “discovered,” and the media made a big whoop-de-do about it. Forty one years later it was declared to be a total fraud. How many millions had it deceived? Some evolutionists knew it was fraud from the beginning, and other evolutionists, who were fooled for many years, finally examined it, and were forced to expose it as a fraud, because it did not match up with their idea of man’s evolutionary progression. It was getting in their way, so they did away with it. The big question is, why would trained scientists, if they are searching for true knowledge, do such a thing, and lie to the world? Is this kind of thing still happening today?
‘Lucy’ was supposedly a link between apes and man and, three million five hundred thousand years old. She was three and one half feet tall and had a hip joint and knee joint which suggested upright walking, claimed the evolutionists. They did admit that she looked very apelike, but since she walked upright she must have been an ape man link. Chimps walk upright today, so what would that prove. Upon further examination the hip joint claim was declared to be untrue. The knee joint was found a mile away, and two hundred feet deeper, than the rest of the bones. This leaves no reason to believe that ‘Lucy’ was a human ancestor.
When originally discovered he had a somewhat stooped over appearance, and it was thought that this was man in the process of walking upright. Years later, more of these ‘Neanderthals’ were discovered, and they appeared to be totally upright, and completely human. Upon examination and x-rays of the original bones, it was discovered that the few stooped over examples had a bone disease (possibility rickets) which caused them to be stooped over. So now, Neanderthal man is classified as human, and not an ape-man. We find people today, walking around, stooped over so, what has Neanderthal man proven? This was not an outright fraud, but like so many of the other “examples” of early man it was embellished beyond reason by evolutionists without detailed study, such as the bone x-rays, and was just assumed to fit their preconceived belief system. Nevertheless, these folks are still deceiving millions of unwitting people, with no factual basis, into believing that we came from four legged ape like creatures, and gradually became man in his upright form.
Java man: Fake
Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").
[Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing,
Orce man: Fake
Found in the southern Spanish town of
Bees’ Nests Baffle Evolutionists
Ancient bees’ nests in
[Daily Telegraph (
If evolution were indeed true, there would be many transitional fossil forms in various stages of evolution, rather than just fully formed ones. In fact, there should be many more transitional forms than fully formed fossils. We should also see living examples of animals changing into other animals. Yet all we find are fully formed fossils, and fully formed living animals, in kinds. No matter if it is an animal, plant or human fossil they are always fully formed. When asked by a creationist why we can’t see evolution happening today, the evolutionist will say that evolution happens so slow that we can’t see it happening. Then asked why we can’t see evidence of it in the fossil record, they say that evolution happens so fast that it doesn’t leave any fossil evidence. Or, they may say that the intermediate fossils have been eroded away and only the fully formed fossils remain. Dealing with an evolutionist is like playing a football game against a team that can change the rules whenever they want to.
Charles Darwin himself in his famous book ‘Origin of Species’ states;
“…why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great”
In the same book he states again;
“…innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps the most obvious and gravest objection which can be used against my theory.”
Certain characteristics become prominent in isolated populations. He assumed that things evolved slightly different in different parts of the world, by gradual steps, until they all become a different plant or animal. Decent with modification he called it. Now we know that it is the dominate genes that modify things, but they do not turn things into a different kind of animal.
I once saw a tall man in a restaurant who had a very, very long nose. He had three teenage kids with him who were also tall and had very long noses. His genes dominated. If he and his family moved to an isolated place with just a few other people, over several generations you could expect to find tall people with long noses, whereas in another part of the world you might find people with short noses, curly hair, dark skin, big ears, tall or short, or what ever characteristics the dominate gene happened to produce. To assume that he will evolve into another type of creature from these small changes, is where science ends and fantasy world begins. The point is that even though people and animals change somewhat in physical appearance, because of genes, they remain people, birds, dogs or whatever they started out as. It is what gives every person a different appearance. Thus in nature everything remains in “kinds” just as the Bible says, and this is what we see in nature today.
Mutations don’t help the cause either, because we now know that mutations tend to become corrected. If someone had a mutation that caused him to have an extra toe, this doesn’t mean that everyone in his line will have an extra toe. Mutations do not add up forever and cause one animal to become a different kind. If they did, the guy with the extra toe might have an offspring which had another mutation, which gave him a deformed ear, from his mother’s side. Then the next mutation might give his offspring narrow eyes, and so you would wind up with an eleven toed, one eared, beaded eyed grandkid.
Mutations can match up and cause deformities in closely related people. The body has a way of correcting any such mutations. If it didn’t, then even if we did not marry closely related people, over time, we would all be consumed with mutations, because they would just keep adding up. As of this writing, science (real science) has identified one hundred and forty five genes that serve to protect the integrity of DNA by repairing mutations. With the discovery of DNA and RNA we now know that it is impossible for one animal to change into another animal by mutations, as Darwin assumed, because the DNA of an ape, or any other animal, does not contain the information needed to produce a human, no matter how many how many generation go by. In addition, evolution must have positive or helpful mutations which are far rarer than the harmful mutations that we have been discussing. So rare in fact, that many scientists don’t believe they even exist. In any case, none have ever been observed. New information must be added into the DNA to make the switch to another type of animal. How this would happen is highly speculative. Harmful mutations can in no way make any organism better or move it to a higher level. Harmful mutations are destructive to any organism. How could a cow with an extra leg on his back, or a dog with three short legs and one long one be a benefit to them?
You have to have “positive mutations” for an organism to evolve to a higher level. The problem is that positive mutations have never been observed in nature and so as far as we know they don’t exist. They are imaginary…like a child would believe in Santa Clause because he assumes he has been told the truth. You might assume they exist, not because anyone has observed them, but because you start from a false premise; that evolution is true. In other words, to the evolutionist, there is no God so evolution happens, consequently there must be positive mutations. So they made up the evolution model based on the assumption that they do exist.
“There is an array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. 2
These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.” 2
Sickle Cell Anemia-Positive Mutation?
“The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central
Put simply, to say that sickle cell anemia is a positive mutation is like saying that if you cut off your legs you won’t get athletes foot. That is a true statement but does it have a positive or beneficial result?
The famous evolutionist and paleontologist the late Steven J. Gould of
“The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change…All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Where did they go? Why can’t we find them? Maybe the Indians took them. Could it be that they never existed? Gould believed in the idea that a reptile laid an egg one day, and a bird hatched out of it, or that a dog gave birth to a rabbit or something like that. He called this the hopeful monster theory. Without realizing it, Gould throws the “millions of years” idea out the back door, and makes creation a necessary fact. Any animal would have had to be a fully functioning animal originally for his theory to even be plausible, if indeed, he did not believe in a gradual evolution. This theory was invented to try and explain away the lack of transitional forms. However, it raises even more questions. What did the first bird mate with? Why isn’t this happening today?
“The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories … In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.”
[Publisher’s advertising of an evolutionary book, Evolution Without Selection, by A. Lima-de Faria, Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc.,
“The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ["The
“If you are going to define science as applied materialist philosophy, then of course you are going to end up with a materialist creation story, one that excludes the possibility of a personal God who created us and answers prayer. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking that this new story has been validated by scientific testing. The important questions are all decided in the assumptions and definitions.
The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested.
Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.” [Commonweal June 5, 1998 p.14]
Peddling their religion
Evolution, Materialism and Humanism are simply godless examples of religious indoctrination. They are belief systems which exclude God, and the deity of Jesus Christ, in lieu of materialism. Whereas many other religions, just exclude Jesus Christ. When you get right down to it, they accept the creation, but not the creator.
“Secular Humanism is an attempt to function as a civilized society with the exclusion of God and His moral principles. During the last several decades, Humanists have been very successful in propagating their beliefs. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system.”
"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" (Charles F. Potter, "Humanism: A New Religion," 1930)
“Yet evolution has not been proved. In fact, it seems that the theory of evolution is contrary to established science. When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” George Wald ( prominent Evolutionist , Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954))
Is he saying that you have to believe the impossible to be an unbeliever? Ah yes, the great faith of the unbeliever. Because he starts with the premise that evolution is true when he discovers the truth he gets in a quandary. So he rejects it on philosophical grounds, whatever that means. To these types of thinkers materialism is more important than God. Of course, materialism can’t save you but God can. What is so important about materialism that a man would believe in something that he knows is impossible and sacrifice his eternal future to worship? Is he worshiping a different God? A false god who has no interest in saving you from the
The Humanist Religion
Evolution is the main tenant of the humanist religion as so stated in the humanist manifesto. If evolution is nothing, then humanism is nothing. It is the atheists’ godless religion and requires a tremendous amount of faith to believe in it, especially in light of what we know today. Every field of science goes against evolution, despite the fact that many evolutionists claim to have tons of proof. But…just don’t insult them, and ask to see the proof. Evolutionists oppose any other teaching in the schools other than Evolution. Why is this? If they are so sure that evolution is a “fact” as they say, why not teach both evolution and abrupt appearance with no religious connections. They know that if abrupt appearance or intelligent design is taught that no one will believe in evolution, because the fossils and true science do not back it up. So the evolutionists, who control education, suppress creation. Personally, I believe that if evolution is allowed to be taught, and implies that there is no God, why shouldn’t creation be taught which implies that there is a God. What is wrong with that?
The constitution of the
To only allow the teaching of one side of anything, and ban all other points of view is nothing less than communist style indoctrination, not freedom of expression. You can only make people believe false things by suppressing the truth! Don’t misunderstand, I don’t want, nor does any creationist, the Bible taught in public schools. That is the job of the church. Schools are supposed to be teaching the ABC’S, but are now it seems they are just teaching the B and the S. Doesn’t it make sense to simply present and acknowledge another viewpoint of origins, based on the evidence, and let the kid’s make up their own minds as to what is true? This is what freedom of expression is all about. There is no such thing as separation of God and children, or separation of church and state for that matter, but still the humanists and evolutionists use your tax dollars to promote their religion in the schools.
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”[John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, January– February 1983, p. 26.]
This guy must think he is president of the Hooterville P.T.A. if he believes that he has the right to demand that his religion be exclusively taught in our public schools, at our expense. No one showed up at the ‘First Church of Humanism’ because they had no one to preach about. So now the humanist’s wants to force our children to listen to their cronies preach their religion in our public schools, where religion, according to the evolutionists and humanists, is supposed to be separated from the state. “Faith of humanism?” Faith in what, ourselves? I would hate to think that my eternal future depended upon my power. It’s all I can do to keep up with my girlfriend. This man lumps together the church and its human failings together with God, as so many do, and then proclaims that we should have faith in ourselves. He proposes that God is the problem and men are the solution. I propose that the opposite is true. Evolutionists nearly always loose the debates with creationists because their arguments are so very weak when confronted with facts. They rarely present facts in public debates because they really don’t have any, and they know that the creationists have logic, common sense and a void fossil record on their side. So, they resort to tactics such as questioning their opponents education, name calling, telling people that evolution is so complicated that the average person can’t begin to understand it, implying that we should take their word for everything because they are the sole possessors of knowledge and truth.
There are some evolutionists that are honest enough to admit when they are proven wrong, but most try to shove their baseless dogma down our throats through the media, schools and magazines, and when they are proven wrong, try to dance between the raindrops with their explanations of how it was an honest mistake, or try to wiggle out of it some other way.
The Bible has never changed since it was written. It still stands. Neither have the laws of biology. But evolution changes like the wind. By the way, every time evolution changes, this means that the previous idea was wrong, even though we were told it was fact. Truth has no need to change. There can be only one truth. Someone once told me that at least evolution is honest enough to change from time to time. Then he ask me, with a smirk on his face, if I ever found something better than my creation position, would I change. I told him “Of course I would, if I find something better than God, you will be the first to know.”
Evolutionists use what I call “illogical logic.” For instance; if one man can chop down a small tree in one minute, then sixty men could chop down the same tree in one second. Is that statement true? Of course not, sixty men couldn’t even get around a tree and swing their axe in one second. You see, we thought the issue through, and took other things into consideration, and came to the conclusion that the logic was faulty. Few evolutionists do this. They simply have a story that makes evolution seem true without telling you about the other considerations, and then they hope no one notices. The origin of life is far more distant and complicated than chopping down a tree. Evolutionists know they can deceive innocent people by using this type of logic, because no one is able to truly comprehend their theories. (Including them) They will pretend to understand them, but when they try to explain them to a thinking person, they oftentimes come across looking like the court jester, with cosmic egg on his face, and the yoke is on them.
They are completely absorbed into their way of thinking just like the religious do gooders are absorbed into theirs. This is the result when Christ, the creator, is left out of the picture. The pieces don’t fit. Most people simply don’t have the time to study everything on both sides of the issue, so they take this so called science of evolution as truth, just because some atheist scientist says it is. They aren’t trying to convince me, they are trying to convince our innocent children and our grandchildren, that there is no God. So, I take it personally, and so should you.
No God, means no Christ, which means no salvation, which means Satan is victorious over you and you will spend eternity with him in a place called the
Evolutionists will present lifelike plaster skulls of imaginary ape men, made up by artists to their specifications, many times using only a tiny part of the skull (in one case a single extinct pigs tooth) and then try to hornswogal people into thinking they are real. They not only make up the skulls, but the whole body as well, and put a lot of hair on them, give them a family, and a stick, and then bend them over a bit to make them look ape like. Then they publish this useless garbage in school textbooks, hype it as fact, and absolutely will not tolerate any other view. Then when someone wants to challenge them they scream “separation of church and state” as if there were such a thing. What a deceit! They may indeed get their wish one day and be separated from the church forever.
Many evolutionists will no longer debate in public and who can blame them. Evolution is at best unsubstantiated conjecture, and at worst the greatest hoax in human history has deceived many, and it isn’t science. The debate is not between ‘science and religion,’ it is really ‘Satan vs. God.’ The following quote typifies the evolutionist’s beliefs that they have become the sole possessors of knowledge and truth and have actually become gods.
“We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.” [Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, Viking Press,
“Architects of the universe” Gee whiz, I want to meet these people who created the universe. Why don’t they create another one and move there? Let’s see, they created the universe and the universe created them… or was it the other way around? Notice that he says, “We (the evolutionists I assume) establish the parameters of reality” In other words, they tell us what is real, and what isn’t, as if we are a bunch of ignorant idiots, running around in circles with our hands on our heads, awaiting instructions from their superior intellect. I hope you can understand the mindset of the evolutionist. What it boils down to is this “There is no God therefore, we are God.” I have often wondered to whom Mr. Rifkin was referring as the creator when he used the words “our creation” in his quote since “we” (whoever we is) claims to be God. Satan has also claimed to be a god and according to the Bible, the fate of the unbeliever will be as sure as Satan’s destruction. By the way, he tries to mock the Bible and then misquotes it.
Where is their kingdom, their power and their glory? The kingdom is heaven, the power is God’s omnipotence, and the glory is God’s perfect righteousness. Man is saying the same thing as Satan did by making himself a god. Why? Because he is following Satan, and not the Lord, and his fate will be the same as Satan’s fate. The followers of Christ will have the same inheritance as Christ.
“You have said in your heart… I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell; to the sides of the pit.”
The Apostle Paul has this to say about evolutionary thinkers:
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in (made real to) them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; (on judgment day) Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things…Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed forever” (Romans 1:19-23, 25)
Some evolutionists become indignant because creationists have questioned their life’s work. This implies that they believe that only they are qualified to conjecture about the origin of life. They are, in effect, trying to find proof that there is no God.
The apostle Peter writes;
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men”
(2 Peter 3:3-7)
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
The Bible is not a science book although it does contain a lot of information which has been confirmed by archeologists and other statements about animals being created in kinds and reproducing within their kind etc. It is a revelation to mankind from God. It does not try to prove how God created everything because if it did do you honestly think we could understand how everything was brought into existence from nothingness, from the spiritual to the physical realm? The process could not be expressed in a human language. To create just a single cell with its trillion parts arranged in a precise order and operating like clockwork would take a lot more intelligence than we could ever muster from our finite minds and very limited knowledge.
Two Tricks evolutionists use to make their theory appear to be sound
Again, please be reminded – you must decide for yourself when you read the following. However, if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory of Evolution will lose a lot of its perceived validity.
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took "millions of years." How did fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years." Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence, and biological answers. Instead, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time.
But is their "time" explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession that the processes they profess to believe in are thought to occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: Either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution). Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex.
Remember the fairy tales we heard as children like – “a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed the frog, and it instantly turned into a prince”. In Biology, they informed us that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because "millions of years" turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly, believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it "science".
When someone asks you if you believe in evolution, do not answer yes, and do not answer no. Instead ask them "What do you mean when you say evolution?" Become aware of how the word "evolution" is used. What does the word "evolution" mean? It simply means change. Does change happen? Absolutely. If you changed your socks within the past month you could say you evolved. But does that degree of change support the Theory of Evolution? Lets explore that thought.
In item #9 of the above list, we showed that natural selection and survival of the fittest are true phenomena. Change happens within species all the time. But for the Theory of Evolution to have merit there must be evidence for new species, families, orders, classes and phyla. For example, teachers will often say that evidence for evolution is the fact that people are taller today than they were 500 years ago. Is that evolution? Well it is change, but does it support the Theory of Evolution? No, because they were people then and they are people now, no species change. Or a teacher will say that
Creationists often say they believe in micro-evolution (change within a species) but not macro-evolution (one species becoming a new species). Creationists may also say they believe in horizontal evolution (change within a species) but not vertical evolution (new species emerging). [AIG]
“My purpose was to show that what is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true.” [Reason in the Balance (1995) p.12]
No Scientific Answers
When you ask a Darwinist, ‘What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?’ the Darwinist will say, ‘Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can’t show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what’s left is Darwinism, so it’s got to be true.’ It’s the variation of, ‘This is the only thing that could have happened, so it doesn’t have to be demonstrated, it can just be assumed to be true.’ And anyone who doubts that it could be true has to provide ironclad proof and justification for an alternative. [Phillip Johnson's Assault Upon Faith-Based
One could argue with this logic; ‘I want you to show me evolution doing the creating. Show me ironclad proof that the universe came from nothing and that life came from a rock and that one animal turns into another animal because if you can’t do that, then we can get rid of evolutionism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, atheism, socialism, Marxism, communism and elitism and what’s left is God the creator, so God doesn’t have to be demonstrated, he can just accepted by faith.
Evolutionary ideas shifts and changes, gets disproven and scrapped and another idea pops up and nothing is ever settled. Truth never changes, God never changes and the Bible never changes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Evolutionists go to great links to try to rationalize their confusing ideas which only serve to confuse people. Evolution is a deliberate attempt by blinded Godless people to blind the eyes of others to the truth of God. I believe that the whole evolutionary philosophy was satanically inspired. It is much more difficult to teach or understand the gospel for most people now than in the past because of evolution. Satan knows this and has gone to great lengths and done everything in his power to confuse the real issue of salvation. There is no directed attack upon any of the Christless major religions of the world-only Christianity-because Satan knows it is the one true salvation.
“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)
“Ye (unbelievers) are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
The Great White Throne Judgment
God wants those who choose to live with him to love him and have faith in him. Then he will forgive all of your sin past, present and future and make your eternal status righteous, as he is righteous, so that you can live with him for eternity. Neither evolution nor God will ever be proven scientifically. There is no middle ground, either you are for Christ or against him and with Satan.
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matthew 12:30)
You will be without an excuse when you stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgment and discover that you name is not written in the Book of Life. And you finally awaken to the fact that you are going to the
“There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” (Luke 13:28)
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, (Jesus Christ) from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (the things they have done)
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:11-15)
~It is a matter of Faith~
“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Acts 26:18
Our purpose on earth is to demonstrate God’s judgment upon Satan was just and fair to all people and angels. When someone sides with Satan their judgment will be the same as his because he is their father and they follow him rather than Christ.
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9)~
t t t